Key result
Use of a 16-cm central venous catheter resulted in significantly fewer dangerous intracardiac placements compared with a 20-cm catheter (11% vs 56%; p < 0.0001).
Why the study?
Does the use of a 16-cm central venous catheter reduce dangerous intracardiac placements compared to a 20-cm catheter in patients requiring CVC access?
Population
127 consecutive patients requiring a central venous catheter via either the internal jugular or the…
Comparison
16-cm central venous catheter vs 20-cm central venous catheter
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Shorter CVCs were associated with fewer intracardiac placements; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=127)
No
Does the use of a 16-cm central venous catheter reduce dangerous intracardiac placements compared to a 20-cm catheter in patients requiring CVC access?
Absolute Event Rate: 11% vs 56%
p-value: p=< 0.0001
The use of 16-cm central venous catheters significantly reduces the risk of dangerous intracardiac placements compared to 20-cm catheters.
McGee et al. (1996) conducted a cohort in Patients requiring a central venous catheter (n=127). 16-cm central venous catheter vs. 20-cm central venous catheter was evaluated on Intracardiac placement of central venous catheters (p=< 0.0001). Use of a 16-cm central venous catheter resulted in significantly fewer dangerous intracardiac placements compared with a 20-cm catheter (11% vs 56%; p < 0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: